The age-old debate of what is art—and what works could be considered “art”—is as alive today as it was decades ago, as the controversy surrounding Australian “art” photographer Bill Henson’s works proves.
Bill’s works are often presented in diptychs or triptychs, and his photos commonly use dark, ambiguous lighting and contrast. But these qualities aren’t what made his works famous (or infamous, depending on how you look at it), but rather, his choice of models and how they are portrayed in his photos.
Men. Women. The relationship between them. Childhood, adulthood. These topics are what most of Bill’s works revolve around. His photos have been praised by many art critics and publications and have been exhibited in various international galleries for over more than 20 years.
But in the past year, Bill’s work has been at the center of much hoopla and has been the cause of many debates and much buzz in the several artists’ circles. A certain photo of a naked 13-year-old girl caught the attention of several individuals, who all alerted the authorities. After Bill’s exhibition was canceled last year, there has been much disagreement between two camps: artists who understand (or at least claim to) art, and anti-child pornography advocates.
One camp screams abuse. The other shouts censorship. Both parties have good points, which are all worthy to be listened to.
But is concern for the youth really censorship? After all, a very thin line divides “art” from pornography, and is especially alarming when it deals with children. It may be that those who will see the provocative and suggestive poses of an adolescent will not mess them up, but what about the kid who was in the photo? Was she comfortable when she was naked in front of a man she barely knows? What did Bill tell her to convince her to take off her clothes? Or was she forced by well-meaning but ignorant parent to pose for the camera, in hopes that their son or daughter will someday be famous?
These are legitimate concerns that couldn’t be simply dismissed. Is Bill simply being artistic? Or is he just hiding behind the protection artistic freedom provides? Are his photos art, or is it pornography?
Artistic license is a great thing to have and when used correctly, could produce astounding results. Unfortunately, it’s also very easy to abuse, and in the hands of the wrong person, such leeway for creativity could be more destructive than helpful.
Part 2 – Blurring the lines of art and exploitation